The government shouldn't be wasting it's time on this issue. If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations. It should not matter in the eyes of the law who the two people entering into these agreements are. In fact I don't have a problem with more than just two people filing taxes together, bundle up everyone's efforts and as long as they're agreeing to work together and share the fruits of their joint labor then what should the government care what they're doing with their privates? Maybe call it an emotional corporation or something. I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Dude. I keep hearing that "marriage is a religious ritual, with federal benefits" but some douchebags never consider their religion isn't the only one. I'm a Nordic Heathen. Gay marriage is totally cool with me. If you swear an oath to one another, you are bound to it, period. That's why it's called an "oath". So if the Christians or Conservatives or whoever is peering in your windows that day while being obsessed with your sex life want tax benefits for "marriage", hand 'em over here, too. The oath has been sworn and they're married now. Turnabout is totally fair play. More importantly, I think the "no separate classes" part of the fourteenth amendment already has this covered. If I can figure that out - and I'm a chef, not a lawyer, for pity's sake! - you'd think other people could as well.

/straight chick with gay friends//this is relevant to my interests ///figures you were probably trollin', so plus one for you

You know what would be great? Having the same right to bring my foreign partner to the US that a straight person would have to make a home here together. Is that really too much to ask, America? A little taste of the equal rights, please sir?

Notabunny:Serious Black: qorkfiend: Dwight_Yeast: ThrobblefootSpectre: But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.

Look at our country's birth rate (just fallen to its lowest rate ever) and you may want to rethink that position.

mbillips: steamingpile: What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.

Hahahahaha, good one! ::wipes eyes:: Oh, I needed the laugh today.

They do vote based on personal belief, and the current Court is weighted towards people who believe in personal liberties, which is why more or less this same court finally and definitively overturned any and all sodomy laws.

In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he said that while he could not find a right to privacy in the Constitution and thus had to vote to uphold the sodomy law, he called the law uncommonly silly and even said that he would have voted to repeal the law if he were a Texas legislator. What makes you think he'll suddenly say the federal government has the power to do something that has been the states' exclusive power since the ratification of the Constitution?

mbillips:Dwight_Yeast: BigBooper: The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

Moron or trolling? Only his bib-changer knows for sure.

Sodom seems like kind of a fun town, if you ask me. As long as we make the building codes strong enough to protect from earthquakes and floods, I don't see a problem.

/Genesis 18-19 are WEIRD stories.

Not so weird if you realize the the first half of 18 is about Abe being a good host, and the rest of 18-19 are about how the people of Sodom...aren't. The whole section has a pretty clear moral: "Be a good and gracious host."

Christians somehow got the idea in their heads that the "sin of Sodom" was buttsects, when there is little indication (save for the people's demand - "Send these travelers outside, that we may 'know' them"; the text in 18:20 only points out that "their sin was great") that they practiced it. There is a TON of text supporting the idea that "Sodomites" were pretty shiatty hosts (shiatty people in general). In fact, if they were all about evil sex, they'd have taken Lot's offer of his daughters - the fact that they didn't (they renewed their request for Lot to send the travelers out) suggests they had other motivations.

BigBooper:The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen " Ezekiel 16:49-50

Sighs, really? How about just declaring that love is love, in whatever form, (well, besides beast love and kiddies) and that the government has no place stipulating who loves who, and if it's right or wrong. Drop the 1940's butt hurt over how people live, give everyone equal rights and benefits and move on to underping the TSA and look at the right to privacy. God, this shiat should have been passed years ago.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Because something written over 200 years ago should be set in stone and never interpreted. Like the Bible.

The Bible has been constantly re-interpreted by people in order to justify their hatred and ignorance...

I understand the sentiment, and I don't begrudge you for feeling that way. But please know that many of us in churches all across the country are fighting against our governing bodies (who tend to be older and significantly more conservative than the actual churches) to support gay marriage. Change is happening.

BigBooper:It's the whole country that needs some sense slapped into it. And don't worry, the day of judgement will come. The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

All those bacon and shellfish eaters make me sick. And don't get me started on those sick freaks who cotton-polyester blends.

DubtodaIll:If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations.

Incorrect. The rights granted to married couples in our society extends far beyond tax benefits. They have the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their estate without challenge or tax and to refuse to testify against them in court.

You're a fine example of the problem with the "marriage debate" in this country: many straight people completely take for granted all the rights that they're granted under the law, and blindly assume this is a religious issue. It isn't.

/I hope you feel at least a slight twinge of shame for having your stupidity pointed out in public

I'm a Ye Olde Time farker that's probably been forgotten in the 4 years since I last posted on these forums. I've been in and out lurking now and again, but never felt the need to post until today. After four years some folks have changed, some have grown more conservative (read crazy), some have become borderline liberals, and then there are people like I drunk what who haven't changed at all.

They're just as ignorant of their religious teachings, philosophies of the world, and worst of all continue to misrepresent what is discovered by the sciences to justify their horrifically bigoted and ignorant world view. Their kind of thought, the sort that sees full adherence to a self-contradictory and wholy arbitrary collection of books written by people whose knowledge of the world barely extended past "fire is hot" and "pointy things make you bleed" as being either literal truth or the only true way to understand the world, is what is used to justify some of the most egregious abuses of humans if not in the US, then in places where protection for those that need it most is unheard of because they're dehumanised in the face of religious extremism.

More succinctly? I drunk what is still a hatemongering choad that would rather spit lies (remember that thing about not baring false witness? You're failing at it) and religious dogma than try to learn that the world has advanced its understanding of things from the days where women were put outside like a dog that had pissed the carpet because their cycle had started.

Marriage is not a religious construct. It existed before your religion, and will exist long after your religion dies out.

If you think the government should "get out of the marriage business" you're either woefully ignorant, or a lying coward. Either way, STFU and GBTW. Gays WILL gain the right to marry in this country, and there's nothing you can do about it in the long run.

I drunk what:is the subject, "are gays to blame for their gayness? if so how much?" OR "should gays be allowed to marry? (AKA should society have to change the definition of marriage to accommodate a certain group of lifestyle choices?)

The problem with the "Are gays to blame for their gayness?" question is that it automatically assumes that gay is an aberration that needs to be fixed. If the problem is genetics, then just genetically engineer the gay out. If the problem is the environment, then jail the parents or put X laws in to prevent the kid from being grown gay.

How about we just accept that no matter what, 10% of the population is going to be gay. Same percentage of the population that left-handed people are, yet there's no one asking if we should be blaming left-handed people for their left-handedness.

As far as the "Should gays marry?" That was decided with equal protection under the law. Again, get over it.

While there's no need to address any of the scum sucking immoral homophobes in a direct sense, I would like to just point out that you guys are going to lose. You are also going to be despised by everyone else after you've lost.

You are going to witness the very public collapse of your disgusting ideology and then will be shamed for ever having held it. In your lifetime.

ThrobblefootSpectre:Dr Dreidel: Is your argument that they (combined) will also pay a half the single person's dollar amount in taxes? That they pay half the effective rate (which could still mean a higher dollar figure, since two people are collectively paying)?

I already said, the marriage tax advantages are still socially useful. So they would still pay less per capita in taxes, even without a dependent deduction. You are really over thinking it. Simply put, my argument is that incentiving breeding was a social advantage for our nation at one time, but that time ended somewhere mid last century, and the tax deduction now serves no useful purpose to the nation's collective weal.

Well, there are also other federal taxes involved. For example, if I could get my partner into the country to stay with me, my employer will offer health care coverage for him. However, unlike a straight person, the amount they contribute to his health insurance will be taxed as my income (for straight married couples that money is tax free). Also, my plan for a couple requires that the first $2500 is completely out of pocket. However, my employer puts $2500 into an HSA account to be used toward that total. But my partner, since not officially recognized as such by the federal government, can't touch that money as it is federal tax free and cannot be used for any of his expenses. So, for him his first $2500 is completely uncovered. So yeah, I would be paying thousands of dollars a year that a straight married couple would not have to pay. Thanks discrimination!

ThrobblefootSpectre:lennavan: So the dependents then. You might shy away from referring to it as the "across the board soccer mom deduction."

I said that specifically and intentionally to differentiate from tax credits for needy families. Sorry if you found it offensive.

I didn't find it offensive, I found it confusing. I had no idea what you were talking about.

ThrobblefootSpectre:As I pointed out, we have the youngest and one of the fastest growing populations in the world outside of Africa. It's not exactly a pressing problem that we have to pay people to do.

You seem to only account for the economic impact. That comment was more of a for giggles one. The point you missed was it's about building a society worth living in. You view birth as about generating a work force. It's not. It's about what good is this country if you and your spouse work a full time job and you still can't afford to raise a family. The pressing problem you are ignoring is many people work their asses off and still cannot afford to have kids. We apply the same logic to the mortgage deduction. What good is this country if you work your ass off and still can't afford a house?

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Hopefully the right for someone to slap some sense into assholes like you. Hopefully in public, too.

It's the whole country that needs some sense slapped into it. And don't worry, the day of judgement will come. The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

Is that the day that all those seafood eaters are going straight to hell??

Gay marriage will eventually come to pass as the norm. Same as interracial marriage. Same as civil rights for blacks.

At the time, people spouted off about how detrimental each of these things would be to society. But in the end, reason overtook the silliness. It will with gay marriage, too. Just give it a couple more years.

Notabunny:Serious Black: In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he said that while he could not find a right to privacy in the Constitution and thus had to vote to uphold the sodomy law, he called the law uncommonly silly and even said that he would have voted to repeal the law if he were a Texas legislator. What makes you think he'll suddenly say the federal government has the power to do something that has been the states' exclusive power since the ratification of the Constitution?

- This isn't a states rights issue.- He voted to uphold sodomy laws. He was on the wrong side of a 6-3 decision which found the Texas law violated the equal protection clause. That's the clause at the heart of Prop 8.- In Romer vs. Evans, Thomas sided with Scalia's and Rehnquist's position that State laws should not protect gay rights saying, "Coloradans are entitled to be he called the decision is an "unsupported victory for homosexual activist," saying Colorado constitutional provision was merely a "rather modest attempt to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority."

DOMA absolutely is a states rights issue (at least it will be to him I think). Congress's powers are enumerated and limited. None of them involve defining what a marriage is. That's a power that is reserved for the states. Clarence Thomas has consistently ruled in ways that promote the authority of states, and allowing the federal government to define marriage can be seen as usurping that power.

Yes, he voted to uphold sodomy laws, but he did it while saying he thought the laws were ludicrous and that he would repeal the law if he had the power to do so.

The dissent he signed on Romer v. Evans was written by Scalia. Compare and contrast the language in that dissent with the dissent Thomas wrote himself in Lawrence v. Texas. All of the hateful screed about the homosexual agenda was Scalia's invention.

If you're as confident that he'll uphold as I am that he'll strike it down, would you like to make a friendly wager? Say, one month of TotalFark or an equivalent donation to a charity of the victor's choice?

DubtodaIll:The government shouldn't be wasting it's time on this issue. If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations. It should not matter in the eyes of the law who the two people entering into these agreements are. In fact I don't have a problem with more than just two people filing taxes together, bundle up everyone's efforts and as long as they're agreeing to work together and share the fruits of their joint labor then what should the government care what they're doing with their privates? Maybe call it an emotional corporation or something. I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.

That's a shame, since you have not thought it through, at all. It's about a hell of a lot more than taxation, and religion got into the game very late, and really has nothing to do with it. Consider: which entity issues the marriage license, the Church or the State?

Marriage is (and has been since forever) a contract about property. Who owns it, who gets to use it, where it devises upon demise, etc. From that spring all of the "mutual obligation" parts of the marriage contract: who gets to speak for another in cases of incapacity, that sort of thing.

None of which should be precluded by the sex /gender of the parties entering into the contract.

As much as I hate to agree with the man, Heinlein had it right about marriage: Willing, competent parties should be able to enter into whatever contracts they care to enter so long as they do not harm others.

can we just let the gay people get married and concentrate on economic issues?

This is ridiculous. We already know gay people are going to sodomize each other. Anti-sodomy laws have already been ruled to be unconstitutional. So we've already got gay people living together and doing unspeakable things to each other, let's just allow them to get a piece of paper which grants them the same rights as any self-respecting Baptist couple who never had sex before they got married.

This should not even be a political issue - it shouldn't be an issue at all. If your religion says homosexuality is a sin, that's fine, but keep it in your church. I have not heard any rational argument against gay marriage ever. Let's legalize it and move on. We should have more important things to worry about besides who is farking who and whether they have a piece of paper from the government.

Singleballtheory:This all reminds me of the great debates about giving women the right to vote. My teletype was blowing up! Oh how I miss those days. When women couldn't vote that is.

From a FB post I made a while back on this topic:

Had we had the internet in1860: Lots of conservative outrage posted about the election of Lincoln (especially in the South) and how it is the end of America. #Revolutionbegins1863: Lots of conservative outrage posted about Emancipation Proclamation (especially from the South) and how it is the end of America. Lincoln out to destroy American economy as it depends on slavery. #Lincolndestroysjobs

1866: Lots of conservative outrage posted about Reconstruction (especially from the South) and how it is the end of America. Big federal government is bad.1920: Huge conservative outrage at women being allowed to vote and how it is the end of America. #getbackinthekitchen1935: Unimaginable conservative outrage at the creation of Social Security as this is definitely the most evil socialism imaginable. The end of America is obviously now.1948: Lots of conservative outrage posted about the racial integration of the US military (especially from the South) and how it is the end of the effectiveness of the US military and the end of America. "Please pray for America" a common posting.1954: Uproar against activist judges imposing desegregation upon the United States rather than letting each state vote individually to decide upon whether black people should have equal rights. Like button clicked like crazy following post: "Activist judges are destroying America!!!"1964: Millions lament (especially in the South) on Facebook that the Civil Rights Act is an outrage. Hidden camera captures President Johnson saying: "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come." Video goes viral.1967: Activist judges strike again! Conservatives clog the series of tubes with their outrage at activist judges declaring that laws barring interracial marriage are unconstitutional. Many conservative Christians post and tweet about how Americans obviously don't care about the Bible today and are unAmerican as interracial marriage is not Christian. "America is a Christian nation!" comments explode.

Dwight_Yeast:ThrobblefootSpectre: But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.

Look at our country's birth rate (just fallen to its lowest rate ever) and you may want to rethink that position.

Nope, same position. Our population growth is among the highest of any industrialized nation in the world, since we are the world's single most popular emigration destination by far, with very simple immigration requirements. Our population is also quite youthful, with more than 25% of the pop being 19 or under .

THX 1138:ThrobblefootSpectre: Agreed on the tax incentive for a two parent household. But get rid of tax deductions for dependents. The idea of incentivizing breeding is centuries out of date.

It's an interesting paradox that when parents take tax deductions for having children, they end up contributing less tax money toward public serves for children (public schools, etc) than people without kids, who can't take the same deductions.

nobodyUwannaknow:Dwight_Yeast: Funk Brothers: DOMA will be taken up, but not Perry v. Brown. Perry v. Brown is a state issue and the Supreme Court needs to keep gay marriage a state issue for now. Besides, there is no constitutional amendment on defining marriage. DOMA puts the equal protection clause into question.

The Supremes have the right and the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a state constitution if it violates the federal one. Why wouldn't they? Prop 8 is unconstitutional for the same reasons DOMA is, and I expect to see a sweeping ruling dealing with the whole mess once their done.

The most recent ruling in the PropH8 case is that homogays should be allowed to marry in California. If SCOTUS declines to take that case, they will approve state sponsored sodomy in California, without even ruling on it.

So do my friendsSo do my loversSo do my heroes

Damn straight, they should! If Prop 8 hadn't been named so weirdly, it totally would have failed and I'd be decorating a cake or catering a reception for a very nice gay couple right now. The only issue would be, which one is Bridezilla? Anything else is none of my business, just as it should be to anyone with even a tiny bit of manners.

/gonna go Freep diving so I can remember even more why I hate people//especially those people

Luminaro:Well i don't know about you, but gay people marrying really impacts my life negatively. Just thinking about that constant man on man sex every night gives me a rage I cannot control and i wake up in a terrible sweat...............therefore no gay marriage!!

Dude, get your chaps on and get laid by some leather wearing dude. You are just stressing yourself out by refusing to get over your self hate.

Bit'O'Gristle:Sighs, really? How about just declaring that love is love, in whatever form, (well, besides beast love and kiddies) and that the government has no place stipulating who loves who, and if it's right or wrong. Drop the 1940's butt hurt over how people live, give everyone equal rights and benefits and move on to underping the TSA and look at the right to privacy. God, this shiat should have been passed years ago.

It was passed, 144 years ago. We just need to enforce it.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

DubtodaIll:i think you missed my point, what i'm saying is that it shouldn't matter who is entering into the relationship, if two people want to work together then there shouldn't be any other qualification other than they want to legally work together.

This is not about "working together"; it's about sharing a life and all the attendant rights. If there were a workable contract law solution to this problem, we would have found it years ago. The closest gay people have come is being able to adopt their partner, but that's A) weird and B) only works in certain states and countries.

DOMA and the state laws are fundamentally discriminatory. This is an equal protection issues, and doesn't affect what any religious group thinks or wants to do.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

The authors of the constitution intended for black people worth less than white people, slavery to be acceptable, and women too stupid to be allowed to vote, so let's not pretend their views should be set in stone and revered after 200 odd years of progress.

DubtodaIll:The government shouldn't be wasting it's time on this issue. If you believe in the separation of church and state then all the government should do or be able to do on this issue is allow people to enter in to mutually beneficial joint tax filing situations. It should not matter in the eyes of the law who the two people entering into these agreements are. In fact I don't have a problem with more than just two people filing taxes together, bundle up everyone's efforts and as long as they're agreeing to work together and share the fruits of their joint labor then what should the government care what they're doing with their privates? Maybe call it an emotional corporation or something. I'm just done with all the time we've wasted arguing over this non-issue.

I understand your frustration. But there are real people who are really suffering because of state-sanctioned discrimination. While I'm not happy that this court, with its right-wing activist judges, could make important civil rights decisions, these decisions need to be made at the federal level.

Clearly the writers of the constitution intended homosexuals to have the same rights as straight people, just like they intended abortions to be a constitutional right.

I wonder what other rights we'll discover.

Hopefully the right for someone to slap some sense into assholes like you. Hopefully in public, too.

It's the whole country that needs some sense slapped into it. And don't worry, the day of judgement will come. The only question is how long does it take before we wake up and realize that we're living in the modern equivalent of Sodom.

What amazes me is some friends of my sister thinks the Republican appointed judges are going to kill it. They vote according to law not personal beliefs but they won't listen. My sister doesn't care but then our family isn't full of assholes who judge her and only want her happy.